Baptism of babies & infants

[guanophore]

Oh, the same source that lists more than 240 subgroups within Catholicism. I wonder why Catholics never bother to mention that part of the list.

The number has been debunked many times. There are primarily four problems with the list.

The first is that they include non-Christian religions such as Mormonism, Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Moonies, etc.

The second is that they count some groups within denominations as seperate and distinct denominations in themselves. For example, they cite the North American Missions Board as a denomination, when it is, in fact, merely a committee within the SBC.

The third problem is that they count non-denominational churches as wholly seperate and distinct denominations.

And the fourth is that they count different churches in the same denomination as seperate and distinct denominations. For instance, if there are five baptist churches in one town, they count them five times.

An additional problem is that it does not take into account the fact that, although two denominations may have different governing bodies, they may share similar doctrines. So while it is technically correct to say that they are two different denominations, it is misleading because it assumes that they are at odds with one another.

This greatly puffs up the numbers and calls the legitimacy of the whole list into question.

Ok, but what does any of this have to do with the topic? The point is, the Church baptized infants until modern Evangelicals rebelled against this Apostolic teaching 200 years ago and less. The rebellion against the Apostolic Faith creates more and more division.

 

[guanophore]

But who says they’re 125 versions of the truth?

I don’t think anyone said that…what exist is a plethora of groups in contradiction to one another that all believe they have the Truth.

We live in a very small town with just five churches: ours (Baptist), Methodist, Presbyterian, Calvary Chapel, and Roman Catholic.

Except for the Roman Catholic church,

How do you know this? Have you ever walked in?

you can walk into any of the other four churches and hear the same Gospel, read from the same scriptures, worship with the same hymns (although the Calvary Chapel may throw in a rock and roll song here and there), recite the same creeds, and in the case of the Methodists and Presbyterians, at least, the same responsive readings.

There are some similiarities among the groups that have separated from the Apostolic faith, certainly.

Also, are you not aware that pastors don’t start their own churches? They’re either hired by an established church or are sent out by an already established church to “plant” a new church?

I am aware of no such thing. While I will affirm that this “sending” does happen, there are just as many that get disgusted and go out, and restart without being sent. I have met several on this board!

What does any of this have to do with the topic? Among those groups you listed above, some continue to baptize infants, just as the Reformers did.

 

[Lilyflower]

Ok, but what does any of this have to do with the topic? The point is, the Church baptized infants until modern Evangelicals rebelled against this Apostolic teaching 200 years ago and less. The rebellion against the Apostolic Faith creates more and more division.

The fact of the matter is that the Bible supports the baptism of infants on the premise that sick people were taken to the Lord who were so ill that they were not able to advocate for themselves but had to be advocated by others. The Lord as we know commended the faith of those who brought the sick person to Him that the sick person was healed.

Now clearly it was the wish of those who carried the sick man, whose faith saved him and which the Lord commended!

Blessings and peace

 

[guanophore]

For a couple of reasons. It’s true that some denominations have split into two because of doctrine, but if you look at those doctrines, they’re almost always non-essential doctrines or matters of adiaphora.

How do you determine which docrtrines are “non-essential”. Since Catholics believe baptism is, and some don’t, who decides?

“split” is never necessary. Jesus constructed His church so this would not happen.

You should return to the Church founded by Christ for the sake of unity!

Others simply band together for cooperative missions or matters of cooperative oversight.

Where do you find this in scriputre? Never mind, it is off topic anyhow.

Fr a couple of reasons. The first is that there are just too many of us and it wouldn’t be practical, nor would it serve the Biblical purposes of the church.

The purposes of the Church come from Christ. They were complete and whole before the Scripture was written. They did not change because some of it was written.

The second is that, ironically, even if we all believe the same thing, being in the same church or denomination would bring about dis

unity, not unity.

For instance, Baptists, Methodists, and Presbyterians believe essentially the same things (at least as far as the essential doctrines are concerned). But even though we follow the same scriptures, preach the same Gospel, worship with the same hymns, affirm the same creeds and confessions, etc, each denomination has a different focus, that is, a different arena in which to apply those teachings.

I think you are just making this up to cover up the disunity.

If we were all in the same denomination, even believing the same doctrines, there would still be arguments about the direction of the denomination.

Jesus set up a system to deal with that, which all of you apparently ignore.

I don’t think it’s a scandal at all. To the contrary, I believe the fact that we can be seperate and distinct denominations…

Such a statement indicates a conscience seared as with a hot iron. Jesus was clear that the world would know we are Christians by our love and unity, not by our separateness and “distinct denominations”.

as much as Catholics may insist otherwise, one church.

Imagine us noticing that the emperor is naked?

 

[guanophore]

The us means ALL who beleive that Jesus was born of a Virgin died and rose again:clapping:

Nope. Sorry. You don’t have the authority to redefine "us"as it was penned by the writers of the Holy Scripture.

 

[guanophore]

What Protestant church denies the deity of Christ? If a church denies the deity of Christ, then they are, by definition, not a Christian church.

What does this have to do with the topic?

What Protestant church believes in soul sleep?

Curiously some of the same ones that deny infants baptism.

The Bible. There are eight doctrines defined by scripture as essential. They are:

The Deity of Christ
Salvation by Grace
The Resurrection of Christ
The Gospel
Monotheism
The exclusivity of Christ
Jesus’ virgin birth
Doctrine of the Trinity

I find this fascinating. Does your Bible have little asterisks beside those verses that reference “essential doctrines”? Who decides that “the exclusivity of Christ” is an essential “biblical doctrine” and baptism is not?

Since this whole matter of essential doctrine is off topic, I started a new thread:forums.catholic-questions.org/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=14

 

[tweetymom]

Nope. Sorry. You don’t have the authority to redefine "us"as it was penned by the writers of the Holy Scripture.

All

 

[tweetymom]

All

Maybe it does not mean all think about yourself

 

[guanophore]

Getting a little child like here on this post. He said no he said You people really are something else. Can’t agree well fine but don’t act like spoiled b rats

Tweety, it is not childish to confront someone who is falsifying posts. kc took quotes from him, changed the contents, and misrepresented his comments. This is not conducive to constructive discussion.

Everyone here has a right to expect that their contributions will be taken at face value,and not twisted to appear to say something that was not said. kc also has not answered for this deplorable behavior.

He prefers to carry the thread hopelessly off track.

 

[hosemonkey]

I don’t think it’s a scandal at all.

That you do not think it is a scandal is a scandal in and of itself. protestants should be ashamed of themselves for so grieviously wounding the Body of Christ by their disobedience and rebellion. In no possible way can you claim to be “one church.”

 

[Lilyflower]

Tweety, it is not childish to confront someone who is falsifying posts. kc took quotes from him, changed the contents, and misrepresented his comments. This is not conducive to constructive discussion.

Everyone here has a right to expect that their contributions will be taken at face value,and not twisted to appear to say something that was not said. kc also has not answered for this deplorable behavior.

He prefers to carry the thread hopelessly off track.

Talking about ‘off track’, some statisticians suggest that if the growth of Protestant sects continues at the present rate then in 2000-years time, there will be around 1,500,000.

They are a bit vague as to what or which denominations this vast collection will belong.

Do you suppose they will be mainly mainsteam or perhaps a smaller group of mainstream with the remainder comprising sects of mainstream or maybe just sects. I am at a bit of a loss to know where this vast number will belong?

Blessings and peace.

 

[guanophore]

All

No, tweety. When the Apostles refer to “us” they are making reference to those who have embraced the faith they believed and taught. You, and the rest of our separated brethren have departed from that faith, so are no longer counted as part of the “us”. Most believers that are separated are not even aware that they are, since they were never exposed to the Apostolic faith. I am beginning to think this about you also. You claim you are catholic, but you do not espouse Catholic beliefs.

The writers of the NT were Catholic, so when you reject the Catholic faith, you are no longer in unity with them.

One of their teachings that infants ought to be baptized, based upon the faith of their parents. They considered baptism to have replaced circumcision as the entrance rite into the kingdom.

 

[pipper]

Well said. I realize that most of it is not driven by malice, but by invincible ignorance. The level of education among fundamentalists is generally not high and usually limited by what is taught in local “seminaries.” The vast majority of fundamentalist “pastors” cannot approach the scholarship of the average catholic priest.

Fundamentalists generally have no seminaries at all, they have “bible colleges” or in the case of my former fundamental denomination “schools of preaching”.

What is taught at those “bible colleges” and “schools a praychin” (they are usually VERY southern my former denomination exists only in the south and where southeners have migrated) teach only the most superficial literalist aproach to the bible. They have no interest in history of the church or the bible, and certainly no interest in modern bible scholarship (as reflected in the notes of the Jerusalem bible).

And the very title “schools of preaching” indicates their approach to orders. They teach “preachers” to preach period, no theology and no training in the other aspects of fundamental ministry, just praychin. For that is all they do. Fundamental preachers only praych. I will never forget sitting in a church and a teen age girl “responded to the invitation” and her dad jumped up from his theater seat to baptise her, by submersion of course. No one is ordained in that church and any lay member can do anything. To be a praycher all one needs to do is find a congregation to hire him and he starts preachin.

The bible colleges and schools of preaching are optional and the majority of the preachers in fact do nor attend.

 

[placido]

I did read it and I didn’t point my finger only at you I said people are acting a little childish

No. To falsify is not childish. It is outright develish.

placido

 

[tweetymom]

No. To falsify is not childish. It is outright develish.

placido

Whatever I really don’t see many fruits of the
spirit here. It is okay to disagree. But and beleive what you want about me I am a Bible believing Catholic!!

 

[placido]

Whatever I really don’t see many fruits of the
spirit here. It is okay to disagree. But and beleive what you want about me I am a Bible believing Catholic!!

It is clear, you did not read post #708. I will reproduce it here for your benefit:

placido:

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

"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 [and atributed it to me] in 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.

That is why I am saying, to falsify is not childish (like you say), it is outright develish. Do you understand now?

placido

 

[tweetymom]

It is clear, you did not read post #708. I will reproduce it here for your benefit:

Here is how Kcmekim falsified it [and atributed it to me] in post #696:

That is why I am saying, to falsify is not childish (like you say), it is outright develish. Do you understand now?

placido

I certainly do understand:thumbsup: Maybe this person is acting on behalf of the devil? I don’t know and neither do you. I just think it would be nicer to see some fruits of the Spirits here. Continueing to argue with this person is fruitless:thumbsup:

 

[po18guy]

No, actually, it isn’t about national borders. Many of those groups are based right here in the US.

If they are not in communion with the Catholic Church, they are not Catholic, in spite of hijacking the name. Either that, or they are such brothers and sisters as the Chaldean Catholics and others, who are in full communion with the Bishop of Rome.

But who says they’re 125 versions of the truth?

They themselves do, by their separation from one another. They have substantial doctrinal differences, or they would be unified. Presbyterians baptize babies and children, for instance. pcusa.org/101/101-infant.htm

umc.org/site/c.lwL4KnN1LtH/b.1697379/k.9027/Baptism_Overview.htm

The Methodists baptize babies and teach that baptism should not be repeated. You disagree with both of these, but yet you are “united” Really?

As it is, they appear to be unified only in opposition to the Catholic Church. Is the truth decided by a vote?

Except for the Roman Catholic church, you can walk into any of the other four churches and hear the same Gospel, read from the same scriptures, worship with the same hymns (although the Calvary Chapel may throw in a rock and roll song here and there), recite the same creeds, and in the case of the Methodists and Presbyterians, at least, the same responsive readings.

I like your use of “except”, as though the Catholic Church is fatally flawed for not going along with heretics. Great! Anyway, they must not be associated with or affiliated with their mainstream communities, many of which use the three year lectionary cycle. That is their free will.

Also, are you not aware that pastors don’t start their own churches? They’re either hired by an established church or are sent out by an already established church to “plant” a new church?

I am personally aware of this being done exactly as I have described. Does it also happen as you have described? Of course, but no one on earth has authority to require, or prohibit you or I from founding our own faith community. All it takes is a bible and rent money.

 

[po18guy]

The Bible is very clear that we are to flee false teaching.

It is also clear that there should not be factions among you. Look, either there is one truth or there is no truth. Your former pastor assures that he has the truth. You disagree. Who’s the judge? Here is the problem: Personal opinion is the judge. There is no overriding authority. No judge. No leader. No Bishop to declare the issue closed. Thank God we have a Bishop to decide, and the grace of obedience to follow!

The second is that, ironically, even if we all believe the same thing, being in the same church or denomination would bring about disunity, not unity.

Did you copy this from Orwell or something???

For instance, Baptists, Methodists, and Presbyterians believe essentially the same things (at least as far as the essential doctrines are concerned). But even though we follow the same scriptures, preach the same Gospel, worship with the same hymns, affirm the same creeds and confessions, etc, each denomination has a different focus, that is, a different arena in which to apply those teachings.You believe that baptism of babies is not permitted. They do. So, they bring you a deathly ill Presbyterian child, because their pastor is out of town. What do you do? In essence you tell them to keep it alive long enough to confess Jesus as an adult, when it can be baptized. Right?

I don’t think it’s a scandal at all.

Protestantism almost completely erased the concept of scandal, in practice. So, just worship at the church with the best stained glass windows? Is that the will of God?

 

[awantz]

Protestantism almost completely erased the concept of scandal, in practice. So, just worship at the church with the best stained glass windows? Is that the will of God?

I worship where I feel the presence of the Holy Spirit.