Baptism of babies & infants

[rinnie]

Hi Ed, I am working on answers to the above will post maybe Saturday or Sunday. The following is on original sin and may help you understand child baptism better.

ORIGINAL SIN
catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0509fea4sb2.asp

Adam and Eve lived in a state of “original justice”: the state of integrity wherein their whole beings were ordered to the will of God. With the fall, man has been deprived of the gifts our first parents enjoyed. These gifts are commonly called the “preternatural and supernatural gifts.” With baptism, only the supernatural gifts are restored.

The preternatural gifts, lost in the fall, are: infused knowledge, absence of concupiscence, and freedom from death and sickness.

The supernatural gifts, restored in baptism, are: indwelling of God in our souls through grace, and the theological virtues (faith, hope, and charity).

Effects of Original Sin **** God told Adam and Eve in Genesis 3:1-24 that because of their sin they would have to work for a living, be at war with nature, suffer pain and sickness, and eventually die. Paul explains original sin in great detail in Romans5:12-19 and in 1Cor 15:21-22

catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0502fea5.asp
To Explain Infant Baptism You Must Explain Original Sin

Great idea. I think if we can show the difference between the two it will help alot. What I have learned is alot of Protestants really don’t understand the difference. I will say an extra prayer that the HS will help you to find the words to make this as easy as possible.

God Bless you for taking this time in such a busy world as today.

 

[EdOsiecki]

Well Ed O:

The only thing I see in your posts are just not convincing to me. They quote Scripture out of not just literary, but historical context.

My primary reason for this post is that I answered your question to me about the Purification of Mary, and the Ransom of Jesus, (Ransom of the First Born). you insisted on a reply from me, as to if I agreed with you, yet you have not replied to my statements. Either you agree or still have questions.

Among the problems I see with your postings are you have been spoon fed select verses of Scripture that seem to prove your Protestant point of view, without understanding the Scriptures in context. Not simply to what they say in the english translation, but what they mean in the context of the original semetic praxis of the time. You equate from a faulty english translation that the Purification offering for Mary was due to her SIN. While turtle doves could be offered as a SIN offering, they were also, if you read the hebrew an offering for ritual purification which can be in part as a result of sin, (spilling ones seed) or from natural events that are not sinful, ie accidentally touching something a woman touched during her period, or a woman after she has given live birth. So please do let me know if this helps your quandry, or if you still attach yourself to the Protestant misunderstanding of jewish law and practice.

Hi Filiope, I apologize for not responding to you sooner, I was called out of town. Let’s say Mary was guilty of touching something as you say, she would then have to be purified by offering two pigeons for her SIN for doing so. Am I not correct? How could that be if she was born sinless? Mary, at the temple in Lk 2:24 did what the Law required her to do after birth, Lev 12:6-8,offer two pigeons for SIN otherwise she would consider herself not being purified. Am I not correct ? If not so, why was she at the temple then? But in addition consider these: Mary sings in Lk 1:47 “and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior” Why a Savior? Only sinners need a savior. Mat 1:25 Joseph had no relations with Mary, “until” Jesus was born. Doesn’t “until” imply that she later did? Mat 13:55 the people in the synagogue name James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas as Jesus’ brothers. If these are not Mary’s children and by allowing Joseph to marry her, wouldn’t she have committed treachery upon the holy covenant of marriage? There’s much being said about Mary. But doesn’t all of this have to be taken under consideration too?

 

[EdOsiecki]

Well y’know I just keep forgetting that Christ gave to peter the power to bind and release. And everytime I remember this I think that obviously I should have no objections to what catholicism teaches.

Hi Zundrah, Didn’t all of the apostles receive the power to bind and release per Mat 18:18 ? ED O.

 

[jlhargus]

Hi jIhagus Thanks for your reply. How can we be united with Christ in baptism, as you say,

JL: I don’t say, the SCRIPTURE SAY, UNITED, not me.

[Rms 6:3 Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were BAPTIZED INTO HIS DEATH? 4 We were therefore BURIED WITH HIM THROUGH BAPTISM INTO DEATH in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, WE too may LIVE A NEW LIFE. 5 If we have been **UNITED WITH HIM like this in his death, we will certainly also be **UNITED WITH HIM **in his resurrection. 6 For we know that OUR OLD SELF WAS CRUCIFIED with him so that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should NO LONGER be SLAVES TO SIN.]

[Gal 3:26 For YE ARE all the CHILDREN OF GOD BY FAITH in Christ Jesus. 27 For AS MANY of you AS HAVE BEEN BAPTIZED into Christ **HAVE PUT ON CHRIST. Note, Children of God by FAITH as many AS HAVE BEEN BAPTIZED. Baptism is the normative way to be born a child of God, as God ordained. It is not the only and absolute way, the Great Physician can intervene if necessary in what I call a spiritual caesarian birth. Just as in our being physically born a normative way, yet a physician can intervene if necessary with a caesarian birth. Our Lord is not bound by sacraments they are the normative way he provides for his people in normal circumstances.

when baptism does not atone for sins? Heb 9:22 very clearly states, “without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins.

JL: Maybe you should show me how you think that blood is applied to us. As I posted before the fruits of the tree of life (CROSS) Christ’s ATONING SHED BLOOD is applied at baptism.

[Rv 1:5 …Jesus Christ…the faithful witness…first begotten of the dead…prince of kings…him that loved us and WASHED US FROM OUR SINS IN HIS own BLOOD 6 …made us kings and priests unto God…] What do you use to wash with? Water.

[Rv 7:14 I told him, “My lord, you know.” He said to me, "These are those who came out of the great tribulation. They WASHED THEIR ROBES, and made them WHITE IN THE LAMB’S BLOOD.]

1Cor6:11 And such were some of you. But YOU WERE WASHED you were SANCTIFIED, you were JUSTIFIED in the NAME of the Lord JESUS Christ AND in the SPIRIT OF OUR GOD. [We are WASHED in water baptism.]

[Col2:10 And YE ARE COMPLETE IN HIM, which is the head of all principality and power: 11 IN WHOM also YE ARE CIRCUMCISED with the CIRCUMCISION MADE WITHOUT HANDS, in PUTTING OFF THE BODY OF THE SINS OF THE FLESH by the CIRCUMCISION OF CHRIST 12 BURIED WITH HIM IN BAPTISM, wherein also ye are RISEN WITH HIM THROUGH the Faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. 13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having FORGIVEN YOU ALL TRESPASSES.]

[Acts 22:16 And now why tarriest thou? Arise, and BE BAPTIZED, and WASH AWAY THY SINS, calling on the name of the Lord.] Our sins are washed away in baptism, by the atoning SHED BLOOD of Christ.

That shedding of blood started with Adam & Eve as I mentioned in my reply on post 408…

JL: I assume you are Morman with life for life, blood for blood. Did that blood atone for anything and how was it applied to Adam and Eve? What purpose did it serve? You did not answer my question in the previous post YOU said, [Adam and Eve covered themselves with leaves but that was insufficient. God reclothed them with animal’s skins, meaning, living animals had to die in their place. Life for life. Blood was shed.] I asked what was the sheding of animal blood SUFFICIENT for? Do you have an answer this time? Also where does scripture tell us life for llife, blood for blood exccept as a punishment for murder? The blood of bulls and goats cannot atone for sin, only the blood of Christ can.

If one is united with Christ per water baptism (there is a Holy Spirit baptism too) why wasn’t Simon in Acts 8:13 united with Christ when he got baptized? He was later rebuked by Peter.

JL: If he believed and repented he did receive the indwelling Holy Spirit when baptized. When he sinned he lost it, just like Adam and Eve did and died THAT DAY spiritually, just as we do if we willfully sin in a serious matter.

Holy Spirit baptism we call the sacrament of confirmation it is done by laying on of hands and anointing after water baptism. It confers strength or power on the one receiving, to contend for the faith, just as it did on Pentecost to the whole Church who had already been baptized and received the indwelling Holy Spirit, yet were very timed or child like in faith, till endued with power when the Holy Spirit fell on them, then they became bold or adult like in faith.

The thief on the cross wasn’t baptized yet he was in Christ because of his belief.

JL: Baptism is the normative way to be born a child of God, as God ordained. It is not the only and absolute way, the Great Physician can intervene if necessary in what I call a spiritual caesarian birth. Just as in our being physically born a normative way, yet a physician can intervene if necessary with a caesarian birth. Our Lord is not bound by sacraments they are the normative way he provides for his people in NORMAL circumstances. The thief thru no fault of his own had no opportunity to be water baptized. So the Great Physician had to intervene, on the thief’s desire to be saved, we call it a baptism of desire, as one who turns to God desires to do God’s will in all things. Analogous to one who lusts in his heart and so has committed the act by desire. Mt5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

John makes it very clear Mat 3:11 that he baptizes with water for repentance.

JL: John’s baptism was only water baptism to show repentance. It was not the same as Christian baptism, of BOTH WATER AND SPIRIT, which gives the indwelling Holy Spirit along with remission of sins uniting us to Christ.

 

[jlhargus]

Why is Paul in Acts 19:4 telling the disciples that John’s baptism is insufficient to be saved? They must be baptized in the Holy Spirit. One can’t be saved without the Holy Spirit.

JL: You will notice they had faith and believed yet were not saved. One can’t be saved without the indwelling Holy Spirit, which is given in Christ’s water baptism. ACTS 19:1 And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples, 2: He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. 3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto JOHN’S BAPTISM 4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. 5 WHEN THEY HEARD THIS, THEY WERE BAPTIZED IN THE NAME OF THE LORD JESUS. 6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

[John’s baptism was not the sacrament of water baptism instituted by Christ, which gives the indwelling Holy Spirit, as Peter tells us in Act2 Here we see those baptized by John had never heard of the Holy Spirit. That’s why Paul asked, unto what then were ye baptized? Paul asked that because the Holy Spirit is given in the sacrament of Christian water baptism, otherwise why ask about baptism. Then they were baptized in Christian baptism for remission of sins and received the Holy Spirit. After baptism Paul gave them the sacrament of confirmation by laying on of hands manifested by tongues and prophecy. Confirmation is called baptism of the Holy Spirit or fire, which those baptized before Christ’ asscension received on Pentecost.

Baptism is a sign of repentance, a turning to God by confessing their sins.

JL: No, that’s a tradition of men made a doctrine of God. There is no scriptural evidence to support that tradition. Baptism is not a sign of repentance, you must repent before baptism. Peter tells those in Act2 who ask, what must we do? Acts2:38 Then Peter said unto them, REPENT, and BE BAPTIZED every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ FOR the REMISSION OF SINS, and YE SHALL RECEIVE the gift of THE HOLY GHOST. Paul is told in Acts22:16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and BE BAPTIZED, and WASH AWAY THY SINS, calling on the name of the Lord.
EdOsiecki;5568603:

But it’s not until one believes in Christ’s shed blood that one is then united with Christ.

JL: An adult must believe or have faith, but that faith comes by God’s grace. Then we can either reject or accept that grace of faith. If we accept turning to God, life has been CONCEIVED in our heart at that time. Desiring and seeking God’s will. Asking ourself in effect what must I do? And seeking help from those who know, we repent, are baptized for remission of sins and receive the indwelling Holy Spirit, thereby being UNITED with Christ BORN again by water and Spirit a child of God. First conception then birth.

A person can be baptized many times over and also confess sins to God and still be unsaved.

JL: One can only be baptized once, if they are insincere they are not really baptized. One can confess sins and not be repentant therefore not forgiven. Those things would be know only to the person and God.

Like Simon wasn’t saved. It’s the belief in Jesus that saves.

JL: Simon evidently believed or he would not have asked to be baptized or to buy the power from the apostles to give the sacrament of confirmation by laying on of hands. We cannot judge if he was insincere when baptized that would be known to him alone and God. He did sin after baptism by trying to buy grace.

When the jailor asked Paul how can he be saved? Paul did not say go get baptized, he said believe in Jesus. When the jailor did so, he and his household were then baptized a sign of repentance and their start of a new spiritual life.

JL: As an adult the jailor would first have to believe. Paul didn’t just leave it at believe or faith alone did he? When the jailor asked how can I be saved? Paul told him to believe and his house would be saved. Yet Paul preached the gospel, in the jailors house then he was baptized, alone with his whole household when he knew what to do.

 

[jlhargus]

You site 1 Pet 3:21, but v20 must be read in order to get the clear meaning. It speaks about baptism for a good conscience that’s (repentance) but it’s the Resurrection of Jesus that saves.

JL: Baptism is not repentance what did Peter say when asked. “what must we do brothers”, repent, be baptized for remission of sins, receive the Holy Spirit.

**How is our conscience purged? **
Hb9:14 How much more shall the BLOOD OF CHRIST, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, PURGE YOUR CONSCIENCE from dead works to serve the living God?]

**How does baptism now save us? **
[1Pt3:21 and this water symbolizes BAPTISM that NOW SAVES YOU also—not the removal of dirt from the body but THE PLEDGE OF A GOOD CONSCIENCE toward God. It saves you BY THE RESURRECTION of Jesus Christ,]

**How do we have our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience? **[Hb10:22 Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our HEARTS SPRINKLED FROM AN EVIL CONSCIENCE, and our bodies WAHSED WITH PURE WATER.] The pure water would be the Holy Spirit.

Read the following John 3:16,36; 5:24; Acts 16:31; Rom 1:17 ;4:5 they say nothing about baptism.

JL: You are correct those scriptures do not say anything about baptism. You will also notice they say nothing about REPENTING, being baptized for remission of sins, or receiving the Holy Spirit, loving others, doing God’s will etc. That’s why we need the entire Holy Bible instead of just a Holy Leaflet. Problem with your theory it does not take into account all the other scriptures, such as [James 2:17 In the same way, FAITH BY ITSELF, if it is not accompanied by action, IS DEAD. James 2:26 AS the BODY WITHOUT the SPIRIT IS DEAD, so FAITH WITHOUT DEEDS IS DEAD.] You can’t just pull out statements without the rest of scripture.

Mark 16:16, “Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.” Nowhere does it say,” whoever is not baptized will be condemned.”

JL: Correct it doesn’t say that. Note what Mk16:16 says, Whoever believes AND IS baptized WILL BE saved. It does not say whoever believes IS saved nor does it imply baptism is only a symbol of repentance.

One must believe followed by baptism for repentance” Do you agree? ED O.

JL: Baptism is not repentance but comes after repentance. Peter tells us in [Acts2:38 Then PETER SAID unto them, REPENT, and BE BAPTIZED every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ FOR the REMISSION OF SINS, and ye shall RECEIVE the gift of THE HOLY GHOST.] An adult must believe have faith, (spiritual CONCEPTION), repent (trun from sin to God), AFTER repentance, be baptized for remission of sins, receive the Holy Spirit This is when we are BORN AGAIN of water and the Spirit as Christ tells us in Jn3:3-5. Thru water baptism one is DELIVERED a new bouncing child of God.

Also notice in [Acts2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. 39 For THE PROMISE IS UNTO YOU, AND TO YOUR CHILDREN, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the LORD our God shall call.] The word for children is teknon. Teknon would be children from infant to adult, We see the same word teknon (children) used in Act21:21 in reference to circumcision, we know infants were circumcised at 8 days old.

[Act21:21 And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought NOT TO CIRCUMCISE THEIR CHILDREN, neither to walk after the customs.

Gn17:14 And THE UNCIRCUMCISED MAN CHILD whose flesh of his foreskin is NOT CIRCUMCISED, that soul SHALL BE CUT OFF FROM HIS PEOPLE; he hath broken my covenant.] Circumcision is a forshadowing of baptism. Baptism fulfills, circumsicion and brings an infant or person into the covenant people of God, otherwise they are cut off from their people.

When an adult Gentile converted to Judaism he had to believe, repent, be circumcised. Yet infants were brought into the people of God, old covenant on the merits of it’s parents or guardians faith, just as in the new covenant. Circumcision was an outward sign only it did not give grace or the indwelling Holy Spirit as baptism does.

Cornelius and company got saved by hearing the gospel being preached to them by Peter then later, they got baptized a turning to God.

JL: Cornelius and household were given the gift of speaking in tongues, which does not mean they were, as you say SAVED, although technically that is true. In the OT a donkey was given the gift to speak, that does not mean he was saved and had the indwelling Holy Spirit, [2Pt2:16 But he was REBUKED for his wrongdoing BY A DONKEY—a beast without speech—WHO SPOKE WITH A MAN’S VOICE and restrained the prophet’s madness.] The donkey spoke by the action of the Holy Spirit.

The holy Spirit fell on them it did not indwell them. Indwelling comes by water baptism after their sins are washed away. The gift of speaking in tongues was given so Peter and those Jewish Christians with him would know God accepts uncircumcised Gentiles, [Acts11:9 "The voice spoke from heaven a second time, ‘DO NOT CALL anything IMPURE that GOD HAS MADE CLEAN.’ 10 This happened three times, and then it was all pulled up to heaven again.]

Peter recognized this from the vision he had before the men came from Cornelius to get him. That vision and speaking in tongues is why they were not first circumcised and then baptized, as God told Peter in the vision, DO NOT CALL ANYTHING IMPURE THAT GOD HAS MADE CLEAN.

The Infants of beleivers are clean, acceptable so who can forbid water that they be baptized. Children of unbeleiver’s are called unclean. [1Cor7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: ELSE were YOUR CHILDREN UNCLEAN; but NOW ARE THEY HOLY.] They are holy because of the faith of the believer and acceptable to God for baptism on the merits of the faith of the parent.

Lk18:15 And THEY BROUGHT UNTO HIM ALSO INFANTS, that he would touch them: but when HIS DISCIPLES saw it, they REBUKED THEM. 16 But JESUS called them unto him, and SAID, SUFFER LITTLE CHILDREN TO COME UNTO ME, and FORBID THEM NOT: for of SUCH IS THE KINGDOM OF GOD.] They are without sin, of such is the kingdom. We are not born into the kingdom EXCEPT by water and Spirit as Christ tells us, we must be born angain to enter the kingdom. If such as little children are of the kingdom they need to be brought into that kingdom.

 

[jlhargus]

Great idea. I think if we can show the difference between the two it will help alot. What I have learned is alot of Protestants really don’t understand the difference. I will say an extra prayer that the HS will help you to find the words to make this as easy as possible.

God Bless you for taking this time in such a busy world as today.

JL: Thanks Rinnie especially for the prayers, God bless.

 

[YADA]

Jesus christ wasn’t baptized until he was around the age of 30.

Let’s word it differently, children would be better off being baptized later on in life when they can understand and say; “Jesus Christ is my saviour and lord.” Baptizing an infant is no different to baptizing an anthiest. The two don’t believe in God or Christ or even the trinity.

And this represents the “Me & Jesus” theology … we do not come to believe and then baptize ourselves as Cristians - we are baptized by ‘elders’ in the faith - we join a community of believers. Thus in ‘adult’ baptisms, you express a belief that ‘is’ your understanding of the life lived in Christ at the moment of your baptism. But that faith is not finished [and I would argue - that faith is not an assurance of a continued life lived in CHrist - either] …

Our faith is a journey taken over time, vastly different at various stages… a person [adult] can make the choice to be baptized and ten years later become an athiest or an agnotstic - this is true - sadly … people can and do reject Christ after having initially embraced Him …

Thus equating the baptism of an athiest to the baptism of an infant is meaningless … the athiest is a “non-believer” a person who denies the exisatance of God …

An infant is baptized into a community of believers - a faith community - based upon the promise of its parents to “raise them up” in the faith …

Let me ask you this … do you wait [and our culture] wait until the child attains the age of reason to declare their national origin? After all, perhaps they do not choose to be an american [insert here - Britian, Australian, African, French, Italian, etc] No … do children at times grow up to have a difference of national allegiance? Yes …

We do not allow our children to decide when they learn to speak the familial language or when to go to school, or whether mathematics is worthy of study …

A Christian household is just that … Christian, it follows Christ - unified - Jewish children [even those above the age of reason] were not given a choice … Ishmael did not have a choice at the age of 13 [or so] whether he wanted to be marked as a follower of the One True God of Abraham, neither did Isaac at the age of 8 days [nor did Jesus - for that matter] …

Yes - Jesus was baptized as an adult … baptism creates an indelible mark on our souls … uniting us with Christ … in no place do the scriptures or early church records indicate that children were excluded - in fact the opposite is true … baptisms of entire households are mentioned in scripture, archeological discoveries give testimony to infant baptisms as do the writings of the early church …

Even as you try to deny the teachings of the Church … Why fight also continue to argue with the historical, archeological and scriptural witnesses …even many Protestant christians have continued this ancient practice?

 

[Zundrah]

Hi Zundrah, Didn’t all of the apostles receive the power to bind and release per Mat 18:18 ? ED O.

That’s right Christ did! That’s why I joined my Catholic Church!

 

[MercyMia]

Hi Filiope, I apologize for not responding to you sooner, I was called out of town. Let’s say Mary was guilty of touching something as you say, she would then have to be purified by offering two pigeons for her SIN for doing so. Am I not correct? How could that be if she was born sinless? Mary, at the temple in Lk 2:24 did what the Law required her to do after birth, Lev 12:6-8,offer two pigeons for SIN otherwise she would consider herself not being purified. Am I not correct ? If not so, why was she at the temple then? But in addition consider these: Mary sings in Lk 1:47 “and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior” Why a Savior? Only sinners need a savior. Mat 1:25 Joseph had no relations with Mary, “until” Jesus was born. Doesn’t “until” imply that she later did? Mat 13:55 the people in the synagogue name James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas as Jesus’ brothers. If these are not Mary’s children and by allowing Joseph to marry her, wouldn’t she have committed treachery upon the holy covenant of marriage? There’s much being said about Mary. But doesn’t all of this have to be taken under consideration too?

For Mary not to take part in the purifying ritual would have been quite risky. Lets just see her try and explain that she was exempt because she had just given birth to the Messiah. Jesus’ life was in danger as it was. Also, I have heard (feel free to add to this) that the purifying ritual took place any time a person had come into contact with blood, not that they had sinned per say. In this case, it was the blood of childbirth that had to be purified. Since the baby had been in contact with blood during childbirth, the purification was done on their behalf also - and yet we know that Jesus was sinless. Throughout his life, Jesus took part in Jewish religious customs that he surely did not need to take part in since was sinless himself, yet he took part in them.
As far as the word “until” - there has been lenghty discussion on the use of this word in other parts of the bible including the phrase “and she had no more children until she died.” Obviously, this person didn’t have children after she died.
Those other children are NOT Mary’s children. That has been discussed on the boards too.

 

[EdOsiecki]

JL: I don’t say, the SCRIPTURE SAY, UNITED, not me.

[Rms 6:3 Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were BAPTIZED INTO HIS DEATH? 4 We were therefore BURIED WITH HIM THROUGH BAPTISM INTO DEATH in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, WE too may LIVE A NEW LIFE. 5 If we have been **UNITED WITH HIM

like this in his death, we will certainly also be **UNITED WITH HIM **in his resurrection. 6 For we know that OUR OLD SELF WAS CRUCIFIED with him so that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should NO LONGER be SLAVES TO SIN.]

[Gal 3:26 For YE ARE all the CHILDREN OF GOD BY FAITH in Christ Jesus. 27 For AS MANY of you AS HAVE BEEN BAPTIZED into Christ **HAVE PUT ON CHRIST. Note, Children of God by FAITH as many AS HAVE BEEN BAPTIZED. Baptism is the normative way to be born a child of God, as God ordained. It is not the only and absolute way, the Great Physician can intervene if necessary in what I call a spiritual caesarian birth. Just as in our being physically born a normative way, yet a physician can intervene if necessary with a caesarian birth. Our Lord is not bound by sacraments they are the normative way he provides for his people in normal circumstances.

JL: Maybe you should show me how you think that blood is applied to us. As I posted before the fruits of the tree of life (CROSS) Christ’s ATONING SHED BLOOD is applied at baptism.

[Rv 1:5 …Jesus Christ…the faithful witness…first begotten of the dead…prince of kings…him that loved us and WASHED US FROM OUR SINS IN HIS own BLOOD 6 …made us kings and priests unto God…] What do you use to wash with? Water.

[Rv 7:14 I told him, “My lord, you know.” He said to me, "These are those who came out of the great tribulation. They WASHED THEIR ROBES, and made them WHITE IN THE LAMB’S BLOOD.]

1Cor6:11 And such were some of you. But YOU WERE WASHED you were SANCTIFIED, you were JUSTIFIED in the NAME of the Lord JESUS Christ AND in the SPIRIT OF OUR GOD. [We are WASHED in water baptism.]

[Col2:10 And YE ARE COMPLETE IN HIM, which is the head of all principality and power: 11 IN WHOM also YE ARE CIRCUMCISED with the CIRCUMCISION MADE WITHOUT HANDS, in PUTTING OFF THE BODY OF THE SINS OF THE FLESH by the CIRCUMCISION OF CHRIST 12 BURIED WITH HIM IN BAPTISM, wherein also ye are RISEN WITH HIM THROUGH the Faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. 13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having FORGIVEN YOU ALL TRESPASSES.]

[Acts 22:16 And now why tarriest thou? Arise, and BE BAPTIZED, and WASH AWAY THY SINS, calling on the name of the Lord.] Our sins are washed away in baptism, by the atoning SHED BLOOD of Christ.

JL: I assume you are Morman with life for life, blood for blood. Did that blood atone for anything and how was it applied to Adam and Eve? What purpose did it serve? You did not answer my question in the previous post YOU said, [Adam and Eve covered themselves with leaves but that was insufficient. God reclothed them with animal’s skins, meaning, living animals had to die in their place. Life for life. Blood was shed.] I asked what was the sheding of animal blood SUFFICIENT for? Do you have an answer this time? Also where does scripture tell us life for llife, blood for blood exccept as a punishment for murder? The blood of bulls and goats cannot atone for sin, only the blood of Christ can.

JL: If he believed and repented he did receive the indwelling Holy Spirit when baptized. When he sinned he lost it, just like Adam and Eve did and died THAT DAY spiritually, just as we do if we willfully sin in a serious matter.

Holy Spirit baptism we call the sacrament of confirmation it is done by laying on of hands and anointing after water baptism. It confers strength or power on the one receiving, to contend for the faith, just as it did on Pentecost to the whole Church who had already been baptized and received the indwelling Holy Spirit, yet were very timed or child like in faith, till endued with power when the Holy Spirit fell on them, then they became bold or adult like in faith.

JL: Baptism is the normative way to be born a child of God, as God ordained. It is not the only and absolute way, the Great Physician can intervene if necessary in what I call a spiritual caesarian birth. Just as in our being physically born a normative way, yet a physician can intervene if necessary with a caesarian birth. Our Lord is not bound by sacraments they are the normative way he provides for his people in NORMAL circumstances. The thief thru no fault of his own had no opportunity to be water baptized. So the Great Physician had to intervene, on the thief’s desire to be saved, we call it a baptism of desire, as one who turns to God desires to do God’s will in all things. Analogous to one who lusts in his heart and so has committed the act by desire. Mt5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

Hi jIhargus, thanks for your reply and now my rebuttal.----#1, You don’t seem to understand the difference between water baptism for repentance and baptism in the Holy Spirit (in Christ) Baptism here is being used symbolically. Infants don’t start a new life -----#2 Every time the words water or washed are used, you attribute them to water baptism. There’s a symbolic and physical baptism.----#3 Acts 22:16 Our sins are washed away by calling on the name of Jesus, by faith in Him. He did the washing of sins by His blood (symbolically) not the water in baptism. Sins are not washed away if there’s no repentance. That’s why Simon wasn’t saved, If he lost the Holy Spirit like you say, how come others there with him didn’t receive the Holy Spirit until Acts 8:16-17.-----#4 At the Creation and not at N.T.water baptism did God established His plan of salvation. Those people had the original sin too. Starting with Adam & Eve skins not leaves, animals died (blood for forgivemess), then from Moses on animals died (blood for forgiveness) Lev17:11 explains why, That was a temporary system until Christ. NOW you read Heb10: 9-10 and you’ll understand what I’m saying. Jesus in Mat 26:28 said He gives His blood for the forgiveness of sins (not water baptism) -----#5 Aren’t you contradicting yourself, confirmation = baptism in the Holy Spirit, what kind of Holy Spirit did you then receive at water baptism? -----#6 “Chistian Baptism” by water? Acts 19:4 Paul didn’t know of it. Please note when the disciples received the baptism in the Holy Spirit by the laying of hands, no water was used. ED O.

 

[hosemonkey]

For Mary not to take part in the purifying ritual would have been quite risky. Lets just see her try and explain that she was exempt because she had just given birth to the Messiah. Jesus’ life was in danger as it was. Also, I have heard (feel free to add to this) that the purifying ritual took place any time a person had come into contact with blood, not that they had sinned per say. In this case, it was the blood of childbirth that had to be purified. Since the baby had been in contact with blood during childbirth, the purification was done on their behalf also - and yet we know that Jesus was sinless. Throughout his life, Jesus took part in Jewish religious customs that he surely did not need to take part in since was sinless himself, yet he took part in them.

As far as the word “until” - there has been lenghty discussion on the use of this word in other parts of the bible including the phrase “and she had no more children until she died.” Obviously, this person didn’t have children after she died.
Those other children are NOT Mary’s children. That has been discussed on the boards too.

Your defense of Our Blessed Mother is cogent and lucid. Anyone can understand it. But, you must remember that EdOsiecki is a (follow closely now) “protestant.” These people(at least most of them) do not care if Catholic belief is presented to them logically, they are only interested in attacking Catholic belief because it supports all the bad information that they have learned all their lives at the hands of other ignorant protestants. EdOsiecki seems to have been Catholic at some point in his development, but some how got off the rails into protestantism. These are the worst kind, because they think that they know just enough about the Faith to be dangerous. You keep on trying to instruct him, perhaps there is a glimmer of hope.

 

[EdOsiecki]

Your defense of Our Blessed Mother is cogent and lucid. Anyone can understand it. But, you must remember that EdOsiecki is a (follow closely now) “protestant.” These people(at least most of them) do not care if Catholic belief is presented to them logically, they are only interested in attacking Catholic belief because it supports all the bad information that they have learned all their lives at the hands of other ignorant protestants. EdOsiecki seems to have been Catholic at some point in his development, but some how got off the rails into protestantism. These are the worst kind, because they think that they know just enough about the Faith to be dangerous. You keep on trying to instruct him, perhaps there is a glimmer of hope.

Hi hosemokey. Would you please be so kind and explain to me God’s plan of salvation for humanity. I’ll thank you in advance. ED O.

 

[EdOsiecki]

Your defense of Our Blessed Mother is cogent and lucid. Anyone can understand it. But, you must remember that EdOsiecki is a (follow closely now) “protestant.” These people(at least most of them) do not care if Catholic belief is presented to them logically, they are only interested in attacking Catholic belief because it supports all the bad information that they have learned all their lives at the hands of other ignorant protestants. EdOsiecki seems to have been Catholic at some point in his development, but some how got off the rails into protestantism. These are the worst kind, because they think that they know just enough about the Faith to be dangerous. You keep on trying to instruct him, perhaps there is a glimmer of hope.

Hi housemonkey, on this thread, there are several baptisms being mentioned (1) water baptism,(2) Holy Spirit baptism, (3) baptism of desire, (4) baptism of blood,(5) Christian baptism, (6) baptism of repentance. I find only two in Mat 3:11, yet pipper claims that there is only one baptism. This is confusing to me. Please! I’m not attacking anyone, would you please give me a cogent and lucid explaination of them all? Also the Scripture refrences (don’t type out the entire Scripture) Thanks ED O.

 

[hosemonkey]

Hi housemonkey, on this thread, there are several baptisms being mentioned (1) water baptism,(2) Holy Spirit baptism, (3) baptism of desire, (4) baptism of blood,(5) Christian baptism, (6) baptism of repentance. I find only two in Mat 3:11, yet pipper claims that there is only one baptism. This is confusing to me. Please! I’m not attacking anyone, would you please give me a cogent and lucid explaination of them all? Also the Scripture refrences (don’t type out the entire Scripture) Thanks ED O.

There is actually only one baptism, Pipper is correct. There are, however, different *forms of baptism, all having the same result. *We know that all are efficacious for wiping out Original Sin and admitting the person to the fellowship of Christ’s Church (if done according to the ancient form ie: In the Name of the Father,Son and Holy Ghost and with the proper matter ie: flowing water) There must be a proper understanding of what constitutes Father, Son and Holy Ghost, which is why mormons and JWs do not qualify as Christians because of their defective understanding of the Holy Trinity. Baptism is once and for eternity, leaving an indelible mark on the soul. If you are baptised more than once (as some protestants are, every time they change churches or feel in need of cheering up) you only get wet. You should already know the applicable verses of Scripture. If you claim to have once been Catholic, you should not need me to explain baptism to you. BTW, please note my screen name, it is not housemonkey.

 

[EdOsiecki]

There is actually only one baptism, Pipper is correct. There are, however, different *forms of baptism, all having the same result. *We know that all are efficacious for wiping out Original Sin and admitting the person to the fellowship of Christ’s Church (if done according to the ancient form ie: In the Name of the Father,Son and Holy Ghost and with the proper matter ie: flowing water) There must be a proper understanding of what constitutes Father, Son and Holy Ghost, which is why mormons and JWs do not qualify as Christians because of their defective understanding of the Holy Trinity. Baptism is once and for eternity, leaving an indelible mark on the soul. If you are baptised more than once (as some protestants are, every time they change churches or feel in need of cheering up) you only get wet. You should already know the applicable verses of Scripture. If you claim to have once been Catholic, you should not need me to explain baptism to you. BTW, please note my screen name, it is not housemonkey.

Hi Hosemonkey, first of all, allow me to apologize for incorrectly spelling your name. I asked you for a cogent and lucid explaination of the various baptisms. You state that there are different forms of baptisms all having the same results.You also agree with Pipper that there is only one baptism. In Mat 3:11 there are two baptisms mentioned, one for repentance the other to receive the Holy Spirit. Which is also confirmed by Jesus in Acts 1:5, “For John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.” My question is, if the Holy Spirit is received during water baptism, is there then two Holy Spirits? In one of the previous posts, it was said that the Holy Spirit is received at confirmation? So is it at confirmation or at water baptism? Who’s right, Pipper said there’s one baptism and Jesus speaks of two. It’s kind of confusing isn’t it? That’s why I asked you for a cogent and lucid explaination. You replied with six lines of information that basically explained nothing. Could please unconfuse me? ED O.

 

[hosemonkey]

Hi Hosemonkey, first of all, allow me to apologize for incorrectly spelling your name. I asked you for a cogent and lucid explaination of the various baptisms. You state that there are different forms of baptisms all having the same results.You also agree with Pipper that there is only one baptism. In Mat 3:11 there are two baptisms mentioned, one for repentance the other to receive the Holy Spirit. Which is also confirmed by Jesus in Acts 1:5, “For John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.” My question is, if the Holy Spirit is received during water baptism, is there then two Holy Spirits? In one of the previous posts, it was said that the Holy Spirit is received at confirmation? So is it at confirmation or at water baptism? Who’s right, Pipper said there’s one baptism and Jesus speaks of two. It’s kind of confusing isn’t it? That’s why I asked you for a cogent and lucid explaination. You replied with six lines of information that basically explained nothing. Could please unconfuse me? ED O.

I have a strong feeling that you are not confused at all, but are simply being contentious. Baptism confers regeneration, the forgiveness of actual and Original Sin and admission into the fellowship of Christ’s Church. Confirmation confers and invokes the Holy Ghost upon the baptized person. In the time of Jesus, He was able to make this promise of Holy Ghost baptism. We pray the assistance of the Holy Ghost by the conferral of the Sacrament.

 

[awantz]

Oh yes my love. You give that soul to God. Think of it this way. We have free will. A baby does not have free will. We are responsible for them until a certain age. So at birth we offer that soul to God.

At confirmation usually the age of reason in the Catholic Church now you renew that Baptism promise. Its up to you now. You parents did their promise now its up to you. You either reject CHrist or accept him. You are on your own. Your parents taught you the word, now you either live it or you don’t. God still give’s you free will.

The first paragraph sounds like what happens in baby dedication at my church.
The second paragraph sounds like what happens when someone decides whether or not they want to be saved.

 

[EdOsiecki]

I have a strong feeling that you are not confused at all, but are simply being contentious. Baptism confers regeneration, the forgiveness of actual and Original Sin and admission into the fellowship of Christ’s Church. Confirmation confers and invokes the Holy Ghost upon the baptized person. In the time of Jesus, He was able to make this promise of Holy Ghost baptism. We pray the assistance of the Holy Ghost by the conferral of the Sacrament.

Thanks for your reply Hosemonkey.So what your saying is that at baptism one does NOT receive the Holy Spirit. Am I correct? The Holy Spirit is only confered at confirmation. Am I correct? If the original sin is forgiven at baptism, what does Heb 9:22 mean, “without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness” ? Unconfuse me? ED O.

 

[hosemonkey]

The first paragraph sounds like what happens in baby dedication at my church.

The second paragraph sounds like what happens when someone decides whether or not they want to be saved.

Baptism in the Catholic Church is not “baby dedication.” Baptism, for infants, washes away Original Sin, the sin of Adam. We do this for our children in the same way that you take your child to the doctor for needed immunizations. The child would certainly not choose to undergo pain voluntarily, but we as parents know that that doctor’s visit may be lifesaving. By baptism, the child is saved. Confirmation is conferred to make that now-grown child a soldier of Christ and invokes the assistance of the Holy Ghost.