Baptism of babies & infants

[kcmekim]

You have denied this sacrament to your children

That’s interesting because of my six children, five have been baptised. I don’t see how you can say that they’ve been denied baptism. Our youngest, who is only nine months old has not been denied baptism, we are simply waiting until she meets the Biblical criteria to be baptised.

The early Christians and Church Fathers knew the apostolic practice–and they wrote about it.

Again, we don’t accept their writings as authoritative.

Because infant baptism has always been the apostolic practice.

Then go ahead and baptize infants.

I pray that the baptists come to undersdtand this one day.

And I pray that Catholics will begin to base their doctrine on the word of God, and not what other men say.

 

[Mickey]

I’ve never tried to convince anyone of anything. I’ve explained to you over and over and over again that I don’t care what you do or don’t do. I’m not trying to convince you to do anything or not do anything. I’m just telling you what we do.

Well then. You have told us what the baptists do. I suppose you are finished with this thread.

 

[kcmekim]

Well then. You have told us what the baptists do. I suppose you are finished with this thread.

No, I’m just finished with you. I see no reason not to respond if someone else who is actually interested in having a discussion addresses my posts.

 

[Mickey]

Our youngest, who is only nine months old has not been denied baptism, we are simply waiting until she meets the Biblical criteria to be baptised.

She should have been baptized months ago.

Again, we don’t accept their writings as authoritative.

Yes, I know that you do not believe in Sacred Tradition.

And I pray that Catholics will begin to base their doctrine on the word of God

Your prayers have been answered. The Catholic and Orthodox Church have been following the Word of God for 2000 years!

 

[placido]

I can’t help what somebody else may or may not have done. All I can do is to say that we’re not going to do it that way.

I can understand why you would rather erase Salvation History from the first century AD to the 1600s. It will frighten you to see that, for over 1 600 years, Christians were doing what you refuse to do today. Either true Christianity disappeared shotly before St. John’s death only to re-appear in the 1600s, or you (plural) ivented a new brand of “Christanity”.

Why? You don’t believe in them. Your church doesn’t believe in them. You don’t adhere to them or accept them as authoritative. What would be the point? You’ve already made it clear that you don’t accept them.

In other words, your imaginary “Biblical criteria” can’t stand the test of serious discussion.

placido

 

[Mickey]

No, I’m just finished with you.

Excellent!
God bless!

 

[placido]

The difference is that we do not consider Hippolytus’ words to be equal to scripture.

What about the so-called “baptist distinctives” that you consider “definitive” … are they equal to scripture or are you being hypocritical?

placido

 

[kcmekim]

I can understand why it would help Catholicism to falsely claim that you want to erase Salvation History from the first century AD to the 1600s. It will frighten you to see that, for over 1 600 years, Christians were doing what you refuse to do today.

Don’t care. We get our doctrine from scripture, not from what other people do.

In other words, your imaginary “Biblical criteria” can’t stand the test of serious discussion.

I understand that, as a Catholic, your faith in your religion requires you to believe that.

 

[kcmekim]

What about the so-called “baptist distinctives” that you consider “definitive” … are they equal to scripture or are you being hypocritical?

placido

No, it isn’t hypocritical to say that something can be definitive without being equal to scripture.

 

[Bill_Pick]

Hi Bill, thanks for your reply. you present several Bible verses above. I’m familiar with all of them. What is your point? ED O.

Well Ed from reading your post I did not think you are familar with all of them and I was just trying to help,sorry if you think I was out of line

 

[kcmekim]

She should have been baptized months ago.

Don’t worry, as soon as she meets the BIblical criteria to be baptised and expresses a desire to be baptised, she’ll be baptised.

Yes, I know that you do not believe in Sacred Tradition.

Actually, we do. We just don’t believe that it is authoritative.

 

[Mickey]

Don’t worry, as soon as she meets the BIblical criteria to be baptised and expresses a desire to be baptised, she’ll be baptised.

Ah, so then you are not “finished with me”. You have not listed these “Biblical criteria”.

Actually, we do. We just don’t believe that it is authoritative.

Yeah I know. But the “baptist distinctives” are. LOL!

 

[Mickey]

I understand that, as a Catholic, your faith in your religion requires you to believe that.

I am wondering if this means that you do not think Catholics are Christians. What do you mean by “your religion”? I hope that this seemingly bigoted comment was a slip of the keyboard.

 

[tweetymom]

I am wondering if this means that you do not think Catholics are Christians. What do you mean by “your religion”? I hope that this seemingly bigoted comment was a slip of the keyboard.

I really think this thread is a lot bigoted. Lord help us all to understand one anothers religion. Or we won’t make it to Heaven. Are you still going to be arguing when Jesus comes if so I am afraid we will be left behind

 

[Mickey]

Are you still going to be arguing when Jesus comes if so I am afraid we will be left behind

Dear Tweetymom:

1. You will notice that our baptist friend will not answer my question. He has also been asked this question on another thread and did not answer.
2. We are called to put up a defense for the true faith. (apologetics) (1 Peter 3:15-17)

God bless.

 

[po18guy]

Yes, as a Catholic, I understand that you believe that.

Do you have any evidence - any at all - to the contrary? Or that it is not required to be so? Just wondering.

 

[po18guy]

No. Here is the real difference.
You adhere to traditions of men who twisted the Sacred Scripture to their own destruction—men who changed the apostolic practice 1600 years after Christ instituted the holy Sacrament of baptism. You have denied this sacrament to your children and declared it to be a mere symbolic ordinance. The early Christians and Church Fathers knew the apostolic practice–and they wrote about it. Infants were always baptized–nothing has changed. The early Church dealt with many heresies (Arians, Novatians, etc). If the apostolic practice was adult believer’s baptism, and suddenly all Christians began baptizing infants, history would have recorded it as a terrible heresy in the Church. But instead we have silence. Why? Because infant baptism has always been the apostolic practice.

I pray that the baptists come to undersdtand this one day.

Amen, Mickey! Jesus did NOTHING symbolic. He overturned the almost completely symbolic practices of the corrupt version of Judaism that he encountered. He taught nothing on a whim - nothing without eternal significance. For baptism, a command and Sacrament of Jesus, to be reduced to a mere symbol is a direct affront to God. May the Lord have mercy on those who have been lead astray! Amen.

 

[Mickey]

For baptism, a command and Sacrament of Jesus, to be reduced to a mere symbol is a direct affront to God. May the Lord have mercy on those who have been lead astray! Amen.

 

[po18guy]

I’ll come in with a reply to the objection to infant baptism - I am an agnostic, and was never baptised but I actually wish I had been - regardless of whether you grow up to believe in the faith, it gives you somewhere you ‘belong’ and not to mention extra role models (godmother and father) which some people really need.

Amen. A well thought out and entirely reasonable view. This points out the value of baptism even in purely human terms. Imagine how much more import it contains in an eternal world governed by a merciful and loving God.

 

[placido]

Something terrible is going on in this thread. Kcmekim is falsifying my posts.
Here is what I said in post #693:

placido:

I can understand why you would rather erase Salvation History from the first century AD to the 1600s. It will frighten you to see that, for over 1 600 years, Christians were doing what you refuse to do today. Either true Christianity disappeared shotly before St. John’s death only to re-appear in the 1600s, or you (plural) ivented a new brand of “Christanity”.

Here is how Kcmekim falsified it (post #696):

placido:

I can understand why it would help Catholicism to falsely claim that you want to erase Salvation History from the first century AD to the 1600s. It will frighten you to see that, for over 1 600 years, Christians were doing what you refuse to do today.

May our merciful God forgive him because he doesn’t know what he is doing.

placido