Baptism of babies & infants

[placido]

Hi placido, thanks for your reply. How else does one find the truth, except through Scriptures.
On Pentecost Day some 3 000 people received the truth, repented and were baptized. It seems I missed where the Bible says they believed, repented and were baptized after reading their Bibles.
EdOsiecki;5622110:

Here you seem to oppose man-made traditions, yet you rely on them for your church doctrine?

Not at all since I am neither opposed to Apostolic Tradition nor opposed to man-made traditions (where they don’t contradict or nullify the Word of God), but you oppose any sort of tradition. Your only point of refference is Scriptures. That is why I always try to remind you to honor your own rule.

placido

 

[placido]

Hi rinnie, thanks for your reply. In Mat 16:17-18, Jesus replied, “Blessed are you Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. v18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.” My question, is Peter the Rock that the Catholic church is being built upon? ED O.

Yes … “And you you are Rock, and on THIS rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.”
Before responding please be informed that we are aware of the desperate and unconvincing Petra/Petros argument of some Protestants, but this thread is about the baptism of infants & babies - not about the Papacy.

placido

 

[placido]

Hi Filioque, thanks for reply. You agree 100% that Mary needed a Savior. Then you say, “I believe” that she was given special grace and God kept her a perpetual virgin. Aren’t you adding to Scripture, when you say ,“I believe”. My question, why do you believe that it was necessary for her to remain a virgin? Would it make her less holy if she had relations with Joseph? Why would Joseph then want to marry her without relations? By allowing Joseph to marry her she would have committed treachery and poured contempt upon the holy covenant of marriage. ED O.

This has always been the problem here. One starts a thread about the baptism of infants and babies only to see it being highjacked this way. Why not simply start another thread on mary’s virginity?

placido

 

[placido]

Hi hosemonkey, thanks for your reply. The reason I said you ought to buy yourself a Bible because in 15 posts including this one you never once quoted any Scripture to support your side of the debate. Why are you bringing placido into this debate, aren’t you capable to stand alone?

I dont know, but maybe he is bringing in Placido into the debate because Placido was the OP.

I have only one question to ask you, would you please show me the Scripture that states the popes or the church are infallible and they cannot error? ED O.

Why do you want or why do you think it is necessary for Jesus’ Church to be able to teach error? Can the Church teach error and remain the pillar and ground of truth?
Any attempt to show the Church can teach error is an attempt to discredit the Church.
As for Scripture showing this, I would propose you first try to find them for yourself, but if you can’t, please revert back to us.

placido

 

[hosemonkey]

Hi hosemonkey, thanks for your reply. The reason I said you ought to buy yourself a Bible because in 15 posts including this one you never once quoted any Scripture to support your side of the debate. Why are you bringing placido into this debate, aren’t you capable to stand alone? I have only one question to ask you, would you please show me the Scripture that states the popes or the church are infallible and they cannot error? ED O.

“Never wrestle with a pig, you get filthy and the pig likes it.”
I do not engage in verse-swapping with self-proclaimed protestant bible “experts.” It serves no purpose as you already have your mind solidified against any view other than your own or that which you have been spoon-fed. You are invincibly ignorant.

 

[placido]

“Never wrestle with a pig, you get filthy and the pig likes it.”
I do not engage in verse-swapping with self-proclaimed protestant bible “experts.” It serves no purpose as you already have your mind solidified against any view other than your own or that which you have been spoon-fed. You are invincibly ignorant.

Don’t be too harsh with the brother … he may be on his way to Damascus. No matter whether he has his mind made up … so was Saul.

placido

 

[hosemonkey]

Don’t be too harsh with the brother … he may be on his way to Damascus. No matter whether he has his mind made up … so was Saul.

You are right. Right now he is afflicted with blindness.

 

[onenow1]

Back to topic baptism:

John4: 1 Now when the Lord knew that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus was [Makingand Baptizing] more disciples than John. vs.2 (although Jesus himself did not baptize, but only his disciples),

=onenow1. Seems to me, EdOsiecki,Verse 1, says it all ! So do you think the apostles were baptising without the approval of Jesus ? Or could it have been a command ?

Peace and God Bless all
onenow1

 

[Julie_L]

Any objection to the baptism of babies and infants based on Mark 16:16 alone is unjustified. If the “he who” in the 2nd half of the verse excludes babies and infants, then the “he who” in the 1st half excludes babies and infants. If babies and infants are not condemned because of lack of belief, they should not be denied baptism because of lack of belief.

placido

Remember… that Satan had belief too…
Belief alone is not enough.

Jules

 

[rinnie]

Hi rinnie, thanks for your reply. Yes you are correct. Not only Luther but some others (reformers) too. They were still ingrained into Catholicism. But you have the Scriptures before you. Read John 3:5 and see if you get baptism out of that Scripture. The Catholic church baptized infants for them to become born again based on John 3:5. ED O.

Ed Guess what we are still ingrained into Catholicism. And until Jesus comes back and give the Church to someone else. I gonna go by Peters successor!

 

[placido]

Hi rinnie, thanks for your reply. Yes you are correct. Not only Luther but some others (reformers) too. They were still ingrained into Catholicism. But you have the Scriptures before you. Read John 3:5 and see if you get baptism out of that Scripture. The Catholic church baptized infants for them to become born again based on John 3:5. ED O.

Are you a believer in “Sola Johannes 3:5”? I would rather propose that you listern to God’s Word (both written and oral) as a single unity. If you do that, I am sure you will get baptism out of it.

placido

 

[Mickey]

Luther believed in the Baptism of infants also.

Yes you are correct. Not only Luther but some others (reformers) too. They were still ingrained into Catholicism.

I see. So the problem with the early reformers was that: “they were still ingrained into Catholicism”.

You are a hoot!

It is fortunate that we have Ed O to set everybody straight!!!

 

[Filioque]

I see. So the problem with the early reformers was that: “they were still ingrained into Catholicism”.

You are a hoot!

It is fortunate that we have Ed O to set everybody straight!!!

At least until the Hotline from the Holy Spirit to Ed informs him of changes in plans, and gives an updated interpretation.

It reminds me of some of the “Preachers” on TBN who laugh as they tell people, Oh I used to believe this, and it was revealed to me that it was something else, but now God has laid it on my heart to believe the other way,

 

[placido]

Hi rinnie, thanks for your reply. I suggest that you read what I wrote to plicado on post 537 and you tell me which of the three popes were infallible? Also I suggest that you read The Oxford Dictionary of Popes by J.N.D. Kelly avaliable in any Public library or Barnes and Noble. That may answer your question why a pope can’t.

A pope can’t be infallible, according to Ed. But he is so sure the claim he is making is infallible. In other words, he is claiming for himself that what he denies the pope.

Why do you read the Bible if you can’t interpret what it says? ED O.

That was the “good question” Philip failed to ask the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8:26-40.
Oh yeah, and why do biology students need teachers/lecturers if the can read the biology books for themselves?

placido

 

[EdOsiecki]

]I dont know, but maybe he is bringing in Placido into the debate because Placido was the OP.

Why do you want or why do you think it is necessary for Jesus’ Church to be able to teach error? Can the Church teach error and remain the pillar and ground of truth?
Any attempt to show the Church can teach error is an attempt to discredit the Church.
As for Scripture showing this, I would propose you first try to find them for yourself, but if you can’t, please revert back to us.

Hi placido, thanks for your reply. I’m back. For 34 years, I never found any Scripture that supports the infallibility doctrine of the Catholic church. and I’m sure Jesus’ church of the Bible is complete as it is written just as it was in the O.T. The Pharisees and Sadducees’ man-made rules is what Jesus condemned. I now see a parallel. The Bible states only two Sacraments, from where did the other five come from? Since I could not find anything about the popes being infallible in the Scriptures, I found references to it in other sources. For exp. At the first Vatican Council 1870, of the 1,000 members that were present, 535 voted for and 2 against the infallibility, the others left without voting . Why on such an important doctrine? ED O.

 

[EdOsiecki]

At least until the Hotline from the Holy Spirit to Ed informs him of changes in plans, and gives an updated interpretation.

It reminds me of some of the “Preachers” on TBN who laugh as they tell people, Oh I used to believe this, and it was revealed to me that it was something else, but now God has laid it on my heart to believe the other way,

Hi Filioque, thanks for your reply. Hey there! If you are watching TBN, you are getting closer to the truth. There’s a Catholic priest on one of their programs. Keep it up. ED O.

 

[EdOsiecki]

A pope can’t be infallible, according to Ed. But he is so sure the claim he is making is infallible. In other words, he is claiming for himself that what he denies the pope.

That was the “good question” Philip failed to ask the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8:26-40.
Oh yeah, and why do biology students need teachers/lecturers if the can read the biology books for themselves?

placido

Hi placido, thanks for your reply. My question wasn’t about the Ethiopian ( mabe he was dumb) I’m asking you why do you read the Bible if you can’t interpret what you are reading? ED O.

 

[Filioque]

]I dont know, but maybe he is bringing in Placido into the debate because Placido was the OP.

Hi placido, thanks for your reply. I’m back. For 34 years, I never found any Scripture that supports the infallibility doctrine of the Catholic church. and I’m sure Jesus’ church of the Bible is complete as it is written just as it was in the O.T. The Pharisees and Sadducees’ man-made rules is what Jesus condemned. I now see a parallel. The Bible states only two Sacraments, from where did the other five come from? Since I could not find anything about the popes being infallible in the Scriptures, I found references to it in other sources. For exp. At the first Vatican Council 1870, of the 1,000 members that were present, 535 voted for and 2 against the infallibility, the others left without voting . Why on such an important doctrine? ED O.

Cardinal Newman and Wiseman from England had been opposed to the Definition, not as some Protestants assert by only stating they opposed it, and leading people to think that they did not believe it, (They both came from a Protestant backround and prior to their study of history, the Fathers, and the Bible, to support their conversion to the Catholic Faith, they had been Anti-Catholics, who would make even Ed blush, and in their attempt to honestly disprove the Catholic Faith, became convinced that they must become Catholics.) They argued against the definition of Papal Infallibility, as did many who returned home without voting because of the Anti-Catholics in their homelands. Wiseman and Newman both warned that Protestants would not take time to see both how reasonable and Scriptural the dogma was, and would continue to spread the false ideas that they had already been spreading that Catholics believed the Pope could not error about anything, and that Catholics had to close there minds to learining. That if the Pope said water was dry and air was wet, Catholics would have to believe it. So many who came from places where they feared the Protestant populus, in order to keep attacks (Physical and Polemic) against the Church did not vote so they could say that they did not vote for the dogma to the Protestants in the area. There were a few like Dollenger, who went on to found the Old Catholic Sect who really did not assent to the dogma, but they were very few. I know it is not the spin the Protestants want to put on it, but it is what contemporary writers inform us.

BTW after the definition, Newman and Wiseman, who never thought the dogma to be untrue, just unwise to promulgate and upset the Catholics in England who had only recently been allowed a legal status, and they feared would be driven back into hiding, and suffer the persecutions they had lived under during the Penal times, when priests were tried in a secret court, and tortured and killed, and Catholics were deprived of their lands and taxed at excessive rates, would have to face the old ways again, became the greatest defenders of the dogma.

 

[EdOsiecki]

Yes … “And you you are Rock, and on THIS rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.”
Before responding please be informed that we are aware of the desperate and unconvincing Petra/Petros argument of some Protestants, but this thread is about the baptism of infants & babies - not about the Papacy.

placido

Hi placido, thanks for your reply. Many years ago, I was told that on the Rock of Peter the Catholic church was built. But do you know what? They since changed their mind per Catholic Catechism #424, “On the rock of THIS faith confessed by St.Peter, Christ built His church.” THIS faith was in Jesus the Rock. Yes you are right this thread is about infant baptism. So I’m asking you personaly for what reason is it necessary to baptized infants? Please give me a simple answer other than because the church tells you to do so. ED O.

 

[Filioque]

Hi Filioque, thanks for your reply. Hey there! If you are watching TBN, you are getting closer to the truth. There’s a Catholic priest on one of their programs. Keep it up. ED O.

Yup, I do watch TBN, and the 700 Club, as well as other comedy programs. I have a friend who used to work for Jan and Paul, the stories that he tells, what a hoot those two are. .I also watch as it keeps me from becoming Sola, and Protestant. Since the programs contradict each other in matters of doctrine and biblical interpretation. I liked when Paul went on to describe Transubstantiation without using the T word, and tell eveyone that he had recently been inspired by the Holy Spirit that the Bread and Wine don’t represent Jesus but becomes His real Body and Blood. He denies Apostolic Succession, but gave a very Catholic definition of Transubstantiation.